Anarchy as a bridge between governments

13 11 2009

I am not talking about diplomacy in that title. I am talking about a drastic changeover in power within a country. I mean more drastic than one party overtaking another for a few terms or a new president or prime minister taking office. I am talking about revolution.

When a country’s government is overthrown by its people, it is typically a small portion of the people, out for their own power. Populist revolutions almost invariably lead to democratic or republican governments. Look at Cuba. It underwent a revolution, created by a group who claimed to be champions of the working man, but it ended up becoming a communist dictatorship.

Revolutions are almost invariably power grabs by people with guns. They create a state of anarchy by toppling the existing government of their country and then swing around and offer that country’s people an alternative to that anarchy, an alternative that  those revolutionaries they themselves provide and one that is impossible to refuse in the face of total social breakdown and chaos.

Anarchy is not a permanent state. Humans, when in groups, are self-organizing. We are social animals and the idea of being individuals out for ourselves is not an attractive one, save for a few exceptions. Anarchy is a temporary state between one form of government and another. This is why I feel it is erroneous to compare anarchy with the likes of democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorships. It is not just the lack of government. It cannot be compared with the others because it is inherently temporary and fleeting.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: